Re: [FYI] {master} maint: assume 'test -x' is portable

It's been Quite Some Time since I've had to deal with
4.3BSD, or any host with a "test -x" problem, so I suggest
the following patch to the Autoconf manual:
diff --git a/doc/autoconf.texi b/doc/autoconf.texi
index 607d8dc..443ec07 100644
--- a/doc/autoconf.texi
+++ b/doc/autoconf.texi
@@ -18125,9 +18125,9 @@ It is safe to use @samp{!} as a @command{test}
operator. For example,
To enable @command{configure} scripts to support cross-compilation, they
shouldn't do anything that tests features of the build system instead of
the host system. But occasionally you may find it necessary to check
-whether some arbitrary file exists. To do so, use @samp{test -f} or
address@hidden -r}. Do not use @samp{test -x}, because 4.3BSD does not
-have it. Do not use @samp{test -e} either, because Solaris @command{/bin/sh}
+whether some arbitrary file exists. To do so, use @samp{test -f},
address@hidden -r}, or @samp{test -x}. Do not use @samp{test -e},
+because Solaris @command{/bin/sh}
lacks it. To test for symbolic links on systems that have them, use
@samp{test -h} rather than @samp{test -L}; either form conforms to
Posix 1003.1-2001, but older shells like Solaris 8
@@ -26320,8 +26320,8 @@ Unix M4 started to dump core because of the length of
the
macros that Autoconf defined, and several bugs showed up in GNU
M4 as well. Eventually, we realized that we needed to use some
features that only GNU M4 has. 4.3BSD M4, in
-particular, has an impoverished set of builtin macros; the System V
-version is better, but still doesn't provide everything we need.
+particular, had an impoverished set of builtin macros; the System V
+version was better, but still didn't provide everything we need.
More development occurred as people put Autoconf under more stresses
(and to uses I hadn't anticipated). Karl Berry added checks for X11.